37
   

McCain is blowing his election chances.

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 03:07 pm
@parados,
Do you want to continue your MO of nitpicking every inconsequential detail, Parados, no matter how far you have to stretch to nitpick it, or would you like to join us in the discussion?

I will concede that I could have been more precise:
Quote:
Congress Passes FY 2009 Budget Resolution, Continues Work on FY 2008 War Supplemental That Augments Veterans Education Benefits
June 10, 2008
Congress passed the FY 2009 budget resolution last week, which includes $1.013 trillion in discretionary funding for the next fiscal year.

The nonbinding resolution is $21 billion more than President Bush requested in his budget proposal, released last February. Funding for education and social services is $8.4 billion above the president’s request. The majority of this increase will go to restore programs eliminated in the president's budget, so the net effect will not create much room for growth in programs important to higher education.

The resolution passed the House on June 4 by a narrow vote of 214-210. House action on the bill came after the Senate approved the compromise measure by a vote of 48-45 the previous day.

Passage of the budget resolution clears the way for work to begin in earnest on individual appropriations bills, with a subcommittee markup of the House Labor-Health and Human Services-Education spending bill scheduled for June 19. The Senate will begin the process the following week.
http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=27487&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
And where have you ever seen me apply an issue of 'moralty' to any of these things? Yes, it is the role of government to defend the Constitution and promote the general welfare. You have so distorted my views on same-sex marriage, I won't even bother to try to correct that here as it would completely derail this thread. Suffice it to say, however, that both Obama and McCain share my opinion on that, so it's pretty well moot so far as this election goes.

And you'll also be hard put to find any position that I've taken that is not in favor of smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government. I would invite you to join the discussion on the American Conservatism 2008 and Beyond thread to explore that further.


"A rose by any other name is still a rose." But, I don't see or smell anything "rosy" in discrimination and tyranny. Your disapproval of equal rights for gays and freedom of choice for women is sufficiently documented in this forum. Stating the obvious doesn't derail a thread. If it makes you feel better, however, you may coin your moral disapproval as "conservatism." You may also characterize your "separate but equal" platform as one that promotes the Constitution, ROFL, but most people understand that "Jim Crow-like" laws only serve to segregate and demean, not to equalize. Despite your assertions to the contrary, you are not a champion of the Constitution, individual rights, or less intrusive government. You do, however, equate the Democrat party's call for economic reform as a call for the lazy masses to attach their lips to the "national nipple." FYI: Democrats are NOT lazy people with outstretched hands looking for the next government hand-out.
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:19 pm
@Debra Law,
Hmmm. You're using all sorts of terms I didn't use, Debra. Discrimination. Tyranny. Lazy masses. (If YOU don't see them that way, what would have put it in your mind?) Alleging assertions that I did not make all while ignoring the points that I actually did make. Oh well. Welcome home anyway. Smile
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:31 pm
@Foxfyre,
I didn't realize it was "nitpicking" when I point out your conclusion is based on inaccuracies. Facts are facts and when you get facts wrong and make conclusions from your inaccurate "facts" it is likely that your conclusion is wrong.

You however stand by your conclusion in spite of the facts being pointed out. Perhaps because you make your conclusion then spin reality to meet your conclusion.

I do notice you failed to mention that Bush has not stuck to his budget either. He has done budget supplementaries every year to pay for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. His increases are certainly more than the $21 billion.
you complain about for the congress.

But it's all the democrats fault. Isn't it Fox?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:34 pm
@parados,
When you decide to get back on the subject, I'll respond Parados--I think we should not derail this thread further. McCain has a pretty good record as a fiscal conservative watchdog. The President doesn't. McCain is running for President. George W. Bush isn't. The President however cannot spend one penny of government money that is not authorized by Congress.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:42 pm
Isn't it interesting that when McCain suggested the government fund a money "give-away" to reduce the strain of higher fuel prices for the summer, the so-called conservatives said nothing to challenge it.

Hypocrite comes to mind.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
McCain however has said he wants to keep troops in Iraq, which costs billions not presently in the budget. You don't get to pretend he is fiscally responsible when a large expenditure he is for is not included in the budget.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:52 pm
McCain is out of touch with reality. There's really no other way to describe it.

Quote:
Q: Some members of the [Iraqi] government have made it clear in the last month or two that they might want to withdraw before complete stability, before totally secure borders, before some of the completeness of victory as you described. Is there any change, do you think there is some wiggle room there because what you described with Petraeus was an end point that was rather complete " a peaceful, stable country.

MCCAIN: Its a peaceful and stable country now.


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/28/mccain-iraq-peaceful/

I mean, how can you describe Iraq as a peaceful and stable country? How? How can anyone be so damn out of touch?

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Actually, Cyclop, what McCain has said is this:
Quote:
Instead, he said, the United States is "within reach" of its ultimate goal: "the establishment of a generally peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists."


That is far different from the statement you allege that he said. Perhaps you can back up your version from a source more reliable than a leftwing anti-Bush/anti-McCain blog? My source is WAPO

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/07/mccain_makes_the_case_for_stay.html
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:03 pm
@Foxfyre,
Actually, that's not what he said. What he said was exactly what I wrote. Where did you get your quote from? Maybe he's said that in the past, but that's not what he said in the interview.

You can slime the website all you like, but how do you deal with the fact that they have an audio recording of McCain saying the very words that I said, right there in the link I provided? His own words, Fox, on tape. That has nothing to do with the nature of the website.

Please be more intellectually honest.

Cycloptichorn
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:09 pm
@Foxfyre,
Alleged? Shocked Listen for yourself before further making a fool of yourself.

Frankly, I’m astounded he said something so stupid.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:12 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
I couldn't believe it either.

In the last 50 days, 700 civilians in Iraq are dead due to violence. Now, that's down from last summer, by a large amount. But stable, peaceful? How could anyone say such a thing, who expects to be taken seriously? The whole situation over there still teeters on a knife's edge. He is bonkers to have made such a statement, and I hope Obama's crew jumps on this one as fast as possible.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:14 pm
@Brand WTF,
If you still want your old ID you might try using the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Okay I listened to the clip enough to decide it is an imperfect translation. McCain did say the line yes, but whatever else he said within that context is mostly unintelligible and was not transcribed. If he did say it, and it was not modified by his other comments, I think we can safely attribute it as one of the "55 state" comments like Obama has made. If you are willing to hang one guy on an out-of-context comment, are you willing to hang the other? I have not tried to make Obama look like an idiot for not knowing how many states there are because I know he does know. And intellectual honesty requires you to look at all of McCain's remarks re Iraq to know whether one out-of-context line should be taken seriously.

And I posted my link too since you asked.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:21 pm
@Foxfyre,
Yeah, I didn't see your link at first - did you add it to your post?

I think, Fox, we better let this drop here. You know as well as I do that it wasn't a mis-statement on his part. He clearly said that Iraq is a peaceful, stable country. He then says 'the surge has succeeded, and we are winning.' The interviewer says, 'but we haven't succeeded yet, right? McCain answers, 'the surge has succeeded, and we are winning.' The interviewer asks if we are at the point where we can draw down; McCain says 'that's the view of general Petraeus.' None of that excuses his comment in the slightest.

Here's a link to some excerpts from the interview:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1836909,00.html

Quote:
There's a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us?
Read it in my books.

I've read your books.
No, I'm not going to define it.

But honor in politics?
I defined it in five books. Read my books.

[Your] campaign today is more disciplined, more traditional, more aggressive. From your point of view, why the change?
I will do as much as we possibly can do to provide as much access to the press as possible.

But beyond the press, sir, just in terms of ...
I think we're running a fine campaign, and this is where we are.

Do you miss the old way of doing it?
I don't know what you're talking about.

Really? Come on, Senator.
I'll provide as much access as possible ...


McCain is clearly uncomfortable and upset. He has been constrained by his handlers to never give anything that might seem like it's straying off of message. It's sad to watch a guy who was once so open with the press, turn in to the exact opposite. Easy to understand why, though: he knows he's going to lose.

You don't have to admit to us that he said something stupid, and let's be frank: something far dumber then saying 57 states by mistake. He made an affirmative statement about Iraq which is false. You know very well that the guy is in la-la land. You just have no other option but to defend him at this point, do you?

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:21 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
It was kind of like Obama lamenting the 10,000 dead from the tornado in Kansas and all 55 states in America too, huh? I have a lot more. Or maybe a little intellectual honesty all the way around might make for more civil discourse so long as we are all making fools of ourselves.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Agree to drop it since I am not interesting in playing the whose is blackest or who is worse. I would like to have civil discourses on what each candidate actually says and means. If that wasn't a mis-statement on the part of McCain, especially since we aren't privy to the whole exchange, then surely you must agree that it is fair to criticize Obama for being stupid for not knowing how many states there are or for grossly exaggerating the tornado casualties in Kansas. Or perhaps we might cut both guys some slack and not be willing to condemn one while forgiving the other anything?

I look at ALL the stuff both of the guys say as much as I can and I do try to stay objective as much as I can. I have never said that I am not biased in favor of conservatism nor have I ever pretended that I was not. But I am not willing to condemn, belittle, or misrepresent somebody just because I want my guy to win, nor am I willing to overlook the real things that should be criticized in my guy. I have certainly criticized him too.

And I don't think it is useful to belittle and insult other members or put words in their mouth they didn't say or thoughts into their head that they don't think. I prefer to let people say for themselves what they want to say and what they think. That goes for people in my day to day life, on A2K, and also Obama and McCain.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 06:01 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Alleging assertions that I did not make all while ignoring the points that I actually did make.


I believe that you did assert that the "center core" of the Democrat party is people feeding at the "national nipple." Here's what you said:

Foxfyre wrote:
And Okie makes a point. JFK's famous line "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country" is where McCain's base wants him to be. McCain's true base doesn't want the people feeding at the national nipple but wants policies and emphasis placed on the people being able to accomplish their chosen destinies. And THAT is the primary difference between the center core of the two parties....


When you characterize the Democrat core as people who want to suck the public tit instead of working for it themselves, you're characterizing them as the "lazy masses" looking for the next government hand-out. I haven't misread you at all even though you claim that I'm always wrong. Oh well. Thanks for the welcome. Smile

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 06:44 pm
@Debra Law,
You're welcome re the welcome. It was meant.

But you're still wrong. You're wrong about what I said and what I intended though you did rewrite that with excellent grammar.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 07:18 am
@Debra Law,
I take umbrage with the line "when they are living from hand to mouth and 99 percent of the country's wealth has been placed into the hands of a chosen few? "

The chosen few? This is liberal dogma. The "chosen few" work very hard to accumulate the wealth they have. They make good decisions, plan their futures and are successful. They were not chosen, they were self-made. They should be looked up to as role models, not condemned for being successful.

Economic reform is a great idea, but taking from the rich only to see it squandered by the poor will only make the rich richer, while making the poor poorer. What is really needed is education. teach the poor how to be rich instead of giving them money for more beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/21/2018 at 02:08:41